Caribbean Trade Law and Development

Category: Trade

  • A step towards progress between Haiti and the Dominican Republic?

    Alicia Nicholls

    The news this week of progress in the talks at Jimani between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to address, inter alia, the long-standing migration issue between the two countries is welcomed news. The fragile diplomatic relationship between the Dominican Republic and Haiti took a sharp turn for the worse in the latter part of last year following a controversial ruling by the DR’s Constitutional Court  on September 23.

    The DR’s Constitutional Court had been called on to consider an application made by Ms. Juliana Deguis Pierre that the Electoral Office be ordered to issue her with a national ID card which she had been denied on the basis that she was the child of Haitian parents and not Dominican. Ms. Pierre was born and raised in Los Jovillos, an area in Yamasa municipality (in Monte Plata province) where many persons of Haitian origin live. Denying her request, the Court ruled that Ms. Pierre was not a Dominican citizen but a child born of ‘foreigners in transit’. Using the case as an opportunity to elaborate on Dominican nationality law, the Court applied the restriction on the jus soli principle per Article 18 of the 2010 Constitution, holding that under Dominican law birth on Dominican soil did not automatically confer citizenship on an individual and that for a person born after 1929 to be deemed a citizen of the Dominican Republic, he or she must have been born to at least one parent with legal status in the country. All other persons who did not meet this criterion would be classified as being ‘extranjeros en transito” (foreigners in transit) and therefore as never having had Dominican citizenship.  A copy of the court’s judgment can be read here (in Spanish).

    The principle in Dominican immigration law of “foreigner in transit” is not new as it was included in the Constitution of 1929 and in subsequent constitutional reforms, including as recently as in Article 18.3 of the reformed constitution of January 26, 2010. However, prior to the 2010 Constitution, citizenship in the Dominican Republic was conferred on an absolute jus soli basis as evidenced by the language used in previous constitutions, which excluded any reference to the requirement of being born of Dominican parentage. The Court’s retroactive ruling which applies the jus sanguinis principle, established in Article 18 of the 2010 Constitution, to those born after 1929 (and not just to those born after 2010) leaves several generations of Dominicans of foreign descent in a legal limbo as to their status. The retroactive application by the Court of Article 18 to this case seems especially harsh given that the 2010 constitution itself does not indicate that it is meant  to apply retroactively, evidenced by Article 18.2. which states that “Dominicans [also] include those who enjoyed nationality before the entry into force of the Constitution”. A copy of the 2010 Constitution may be found here (in Spanish).

    While persons born to parents of other nationalities will be affected, it is persons of Haitian descent who make up the overwhelming majority of persons to whom this ruling would apply.  Some human rights groups estimate that as many as 200,000 persons of Haitian descent may be affected by the ruling. Haiti and the Dominican Republic, which share the Caribbean island of Hispaniola, have always had a tense and complicated relationship which has its roots in the colonial era and in subsequent historical events. These events include the 22-year Haitian occupation of the Dominican Republic in the immediate post-colonial period before the latter attained its independence, and the slaughter of thousands of Haitians by the Trujillo dictatorship in 1937. The socioeconomic disparities between the two states and their cultural, religious, linguistic and racial differences, a legacy of colonialism, have only helped to further deepen the gulf between these two sister nations. A constant source of tension between the two states has been undocumented Haitian migration to the Dominican Republic. Ever since the 1920s when Haitian workers were actively recruited to work in the Dominican Republic’s sugar industry, the Dominican Republic has been an attractive employment market for seasonal and long-term Haitian workers searching for a better life for themselves and their families. Many of those affected by the ruling include Haitians who had been brought in to work on Dominican farms during the 1920s and their descendants born and raised in the DR.

    Haitian emigration to the Dominican Republic has helped to foment anti-Haitian sentiment among some Dominicans, a sentiment which is also boosted because of the Dominican Republic’s own racially stratified society where darker skin is still synonymous with being poor and uneducated.

    The immigration policy of states is always a touchy subject because of the importance it has for national security. Indeed, it is no doubt that inherent in being a sovereign nation is the right of the state to protect its borders. Both customary international law and the Montevideo Convention of 1933 provide that no state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another. Further, international law gives states the right to dictate their own policies in regards to conferring nationality.

    However, these rights are not absolute as they are subject, inter alia, to the various international human rights treaties which States, like the DR, have acceded to, and by which they agree to respect human rights and to be held accountable for any violation thereof. The human rights implications of the constitutional court’s ruling cannot be overlooked on the basis that the ruling is solely in the province of the DR’s internal affairs. The ruling has been condemned by CARICOM states (of which Haiti is a member) and by various human rights groups as being ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ in nature and with potentially devastating human rights consequences.

    Although Dominican authorities deny that the ruling leaves anyone stateless and argue that a plan for naturalisation of affected persons would be implemented, the Court’s retroactive application of Article 18 of the 2010 Constitution does have the effect of stripping those affected of citizenship, depriving them of the rights inherent with nationality, such as the right to vote, the ability to get married and the right of access to basic services such as education, employment and health care, and bringing with it the possibility of expulsion from the land of their birth. Like Juliana Deguis Pierre, many of those three generations of Haitians who are affected were born in, and have lived in the Dominican Republic all their lives, have little or no ties to Haiti and speak no Haitian creole.  In light of the ruling, CARICOM has agreed to indefinitely defer consideration of the Dominican Republic’s longstanding application to accede to CARICOM.

    Happily, it appears tentatively that some progress is being made to address this unfortunate state of affairs. Both countries have agreed to establish a Joint Commission to discuss not just issues relating to migration, but also matters of trade, the environment, security, among others. The Dominican Republic has stated that it will as shortly as February 27th bring legislation to address the situation of those born in the Dominican Republic but who currently have no documentation. It is hoped that such legislation will undo the human rights injustice which this ruling portends, affirming the right of those affected to Dominican nationality and being a needed step towards addressing and correcting  the discrimination which many native born Dominicans of Haitian  descent continue to face.

    Alicia Nicholls is a trade policy specialist and law graduate. She can be followed on Twitter at @Licylaw. 

  • What does the Bali Package mean for Small Vulnerable Economies like CARICOM?

    Alicia Nicholls

    Five days of intense negotiations have given birth to the first major trade agreement to be agreed to by all WTO members since the WTO’s formation at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round. Termed “a leap forward for developing countries” by WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo, the Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Bali, Indonesia, in December of last year has been heralded as the injection of confidence needed to bring new life to a Doha Round which seemed to be tottering on the brink of failure.

    The Doha Development Agenda which, in the thirteenth year since its launch at the WTO’s Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, has the unfortunate title of being the longest and most contentious multilateral trade round to date. It contains an ambitious work programme which covers about twenty areas of trade, including: agriculture, services, market access for non-agricultural products, trade facilitation, WTO rules, the dispute settlement understanding and trade and the environment. The disappointment with the lack of progress in the Doha Round since 2008 has led  many powerful WTO member states to turn their attention to bilateral agreements, including so-called “mega-trade deals” like the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Entrenched interests and lack of political will have been blamed for the doldrums to which the Doha Round has been relegated since 2008. It is therefore no surprise that in his statement at the opening of the Bali Ministerial, Director General Azevedo noted that the future of the WTO and the Multilateral Trading System hung in the balance.

    Coming out of the Bali Ministerial Conference, the Ministers adopted the “Bali Package” on 7 December 2013, a package of ten agreements covering three of the more easily reconcilable cluster of issues of the Doha Agenda, namely trade facilitation, agriculture, cotton and development and LDC issues. CARICOM has always been a loyal supporter of the multilateral trade system, a sentiment reiterated by Guyanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett, in her capacity as CARICOM’s Ministerial spokesman on WTO matters. The question to be explored in this article is what implications do the agreements and decisions contained in the Bali Package have for small vulnerable economies like those in CARICOM and the wider Caribbean?

    The Agreement on Trade Facilitation

    The Agreement on Trade Facilitation seeks to facilitate global trade by speeding up, and providing transparency and efficiency in customs procedures. The provision on goods in transit is of importance to landlocked countries which rely on ports in neighbouring coastal states for the import of goods. Keeping up with the times, there is also the requirement that information be placed online. The language of the Agreement is primarily ‘best endeavour’ for the simple fact that the ability of most states to abide by the provisions will be contingent on their receipt of funding to defray the costs of implementation. Indeed, the implementation of these requirements, while important for the multilateral trade system, will be costly for cash-strapped CARICOM states in terms of updating their existing infrastructure and training customs officials. The technical and financial assistance and capacity-building provided for in the Agreement,  in-keeping with the principle of special and differential treatment for developing states, will be vital to help CARICOM states meet these new obligations. The issue of the US’ illegal embargo on Cuba since 1960 threatened to hold up any agreement on trade facilitation. Cuba, Venezuela, among others objected to the removal of a provision relating to the embargo from the text. A compromise was struck by which a provision was added upholding the principle of non-discrimination on transit trade, which spoke  to the embargo situation.

    Agriculture

    The main contentious issue at the Bali Ministerial was the complex issue of public stockholding programmes for food security, a practice where governments purchase food from local farmers at favourable prices in order to guarantee food security and to support low income farmers.  The US was insistent on the expiry of the “Peace Clause” (Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture) which prevents support measures and export subsidies of a member which are legal under the Agreement on Agriculture from being challenged for their illegality under another WTO agreement. India, however, which operates MSPs programmes on a number of agricultural products, strongly objected to the proposed expiry of the ‘peace clause’ without provision being made for a permanent solution. A compromise was finally struck whereby the peace clause would remain in the interim until a more permanent solution was found.  The implication of this is that for now developing country members’ public stockholding programmes for food security in times of food crisis cannot be challenged under any WTO agreement even if they go over their Aggregate Measure of Support (AMS).

    Tariff Quota Administration

    With respect to the administration of under-filled tariff quotas, the agreement was reached that members would engage in a combination of consultation and providing information where such under-filling occurs. However, importantly several countries, including the CARIFORUM states of Barbados and the Dominican Republic, reserved the right not to apply the system after six years.

    Market Access for Least Developed countries

    Of particular concern to Haiti, the only LDC in CARICOM, are the four documents on market access for LDCS, which have remained unchanged from the versions negotiated at Geneva. These include decisions for granting duty-free, quota-access for least developed countries to export to developed country markets, simplified preferential rules of origin for goods from LDCs, a “services waiver for preferential treatment for LDC service providers” and a “monitoring mechanism on Special and Differential Treatment”.

    Of general interest to all countries of the region, decisions were also taken by the Ministers on five aspects of the WTO’s regular work. Members agreed not to bring “non-violation” cases in intellectual property to the WTO dispute settlement process, import duties would not be charged on electronic transmissions and special consideration would be given to the issues of small economies. Ministers also reaffirmed their commitment to Aid for Trade and affirmed that their Geneva delegations would be directed to continue examining the link between technology transfer and trade. However, the details of these latter decisions remain to be elaborated upon in future negotiations.

    Implications for SVEs like CARICOM?

    The conclusion of the Bali Package is a small but important step towards the achievement of the Doha Agenda for the simple fact that it gives a new infusion of confidence and credibility to the WTO as the pre-eminent forum for trade negotiations. This is only the beginning however. The Bali package focuses mainly on low hanging fruits, while negotiations on more contentious areas of interest to CARICOM, like services trade, remain. Other priority areas important for ensuring SVEs like CARICOM reap the benefits of the multilateral trading system are still to be finalised, including the work programme for SVEs,  Aid for Trade, the issue of appropriate flexibilities for SVEs in the NAMA negotiations, trade and technology transfer, more flexible accession for SVEs, and reforms of the dispute settlement process to take into account the difficulties faced by SVEs in ensuring compliance by larger states with dispute settlement body decisions.

    In their Ministerial Declaration, the Ministers instructed the Trade Negotiations Committee to prepare “a clearly defined work program on the remaining Doha Development Agenda issues” within the next twelve months, building on the Bali decisions and prioritising areas where binding decisions had been unable to be made. Director-General Azevedo has optimistically stated that the WTO hopes to have a full agreement by year-end.  Small developing economies like those in CARICOM have a lot riding on the outcome of the Doha Round and stand to lose the most should the round fail or not fulfill its mandate of being development-focused. However, the success of the Doha Round will depend on whether WTO member states, particularly the richer countries, are willing to set aside their entrenched political interests in the effort of delivering a truly development-centred final package.

    Alicia Nicholls is a trade policy specialist. She can be followed on Twitter at @LicyLaw.

  • Small dots but big footprints: Caribbean Countries and International Organisations

    Alicia Nicholls

    Another daughter of the soil has been called to serve on one of the world’s most eminent and most important intergovernmental organisations. This time it is Barbados’ Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Joy St. John who has been appointed Chairwoman of the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation (WHO).

    Dr. Joy St. John, a medical doctor, joins a growing list of Barbadian and CARICOM nationals who have been called to serve in the highest echelons of some of the world’s most prestigious international bodies. Casting our minds a bit back in time, one would recall another Barbadian woman who made a notable contribution to public health issues at the international level. Barbados’ former Governor-General, Dame Ruth Nita Barrow, served as a nursing advisor to the WHO and the Pan-American Health Organisation for more than a decade. Though a midwife and nurse, Dame Nita had also served as President of the International Council on Adult Education in 1975 and 1986.

    Outside of the health arena and more contemporarily, Mrs. Elizabeth Thompson, former Barbados Labour Party (BLP) cabinet minister and well-esteemed environmental lawyer and negotiator, was appointed as a United Nations Assistant Secretary General. In 2010 she was appointed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as Executive Coordinator of the UNCSD Rio +20 Conference. In the field of trade in intellectual property, Mr. Trevor Clarke is the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)’s Assistant Director General for the Culture and Creative Industries Sector. Further in the area of culture, Alissandra Cummins, the Director of the Barbados Museum and Historical Society, is currently the Chairperson of the Executive Board of UNESCO  (2011-2013) and had also made history as being the first Caribbean and female president of the International Council of Museums between 2004-2010.

    We in the Caribbean often regard ourselves as small states. Indeed, by our geographic, demographic and economic size, we are. However, our contribution in international organisations, particularly on issues of greatest concern to us as small states,  should serve to us as a reminder that while we may appear as no more than little dots on a map, our footprint in these organisations often belies our size.  One would recall that it was Trinidad & Tobago under the leadership of then Prime Minister A.N.R. Robinson which was instrumental in pushing for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Again in the field of law, eminent Jamaican law professor and former principal of the Norman Manley Law School, Dr. Stephen Vasciannie, served on the prestigious UN Law Commission whose mandate is the codification and progressive development of international law.

    There are many others that can be listed but I have made my point. The ability of Caribbean people to assume and function effectively in these key positions and the faith that other nations have put in the representation of our nationals stand as testament and vindication of the solid investment that our governments have tended to put in developing our greatest resource, that is, our people.

    I wish Dr. St. John all the best in her new position as she continues to fly our Barbadian and CARICOM flags high.

    Alicia Nicholls is a trade policy specialist and law student at the University of the West Indies – Cave Hill. You can contact her here or follow her on Twitter at @LicyLaw.

  • Is ALBA a threat to CARICOM integration?

    Alicia Nicholls

    CARICOM countries could soon make up the majority of member states in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA). At the bloc’s 11th Summit last month in Caracas, both Suriname and St. Lucia  formally expressed their intention to become members of the eight-member group. They would join four other CARICOM countries which are already ALBA member states: Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, St. Vincent & the Grenadines and more recently, Haiti.

    The wave of interest in ALBA, a regional bloc which like CARICOM envisions deep integration between its members, comes against a backdrop of stagnation and crisis in the CARICOM integration process.  While ALBA leaders at their 11th Summit agreed to move full speed ahead to deepen their integration with the creation of a single monetary union – ECOALBA, CARICOM Heads of Governments caught most people by surprise last year when they inexplicably put the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME) on ‘pause’ during their retreat in Guyana. It was a decision for which Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves recently expressed regret. In a candid letter sent to the Secretary General of CARICOM which effused both lament and frustration at the current ‘standstill’ in CARICOM, Dr. Ralph Gonsalves made mention of the augmented interest by CARICOM countries in courting ALBA. He predicted that more CARICOM countries were likely to follow suit and rhetorically asked what would be the implications of this for CARICOM.

    ALBA is one of the most well-known South-South trade initiatives in the Western Hemisphere, not just because it was the brain child of the outspoken and no-nonsense President of Venezuela, Mr. Hugo Chavez, but because it potentially represents a more equitable alternative to the traditional neoliberal model of regionalism. It was launched by Venezuela and Cuba in 2004 originally as the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas, and as an alternative to the now moribund Free Trade Area of the Americas which had been pushed by the United States. Drawing inspiration from the political thought of freedom fighters Jose Marti and Simon Bolivar, ALBA’s stated aim is to be a political, economic and social alliance which seeks to protect the independence, sovereignty, self-determination and identity of its Member States, and to protect the interests of the peoples of the South from political and economic domination.

    If the question of ALBA’s threat to the CARICOM integration process is considered purely on the compatibility of ALBA CARICOM countries’ obligations, the flexibility which ALBA gives its members in terms of the initiatives which they can choose to be a part of means that ALBA CARICOM countries are free to refrain from initiatives which could conflict with their CARICOM and OECS obligations.  In the declaration of accession signed by St Vincent and the Grenadines for example, the Gonsalves Government made clear that as a regional movement ALBA does not alter but complements its obligations in other regional movements such as the OECS and CARICOM.  Thus, St Vincent and the Grenadines, like the other OECS members of ALBA, has not introduced the new regional trading currency – the sucre in light of its membership in the OECS’ monetary union.

    A more immediate domain for conflict between ALBA and CARICOM obligations appears to be in the area of foreign policy. Foreign policy coordination is one of the stated objectives of CARICOM per the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas and one of the pillars of functional cooperation.  While ALBA Members are given flexibility in foreign policy, ALBA as a group has been outspoken on several current conflicts, including throwing support in a recent declaration solidly behind Argentina in the recently escalating Falkland Islands dispute between that country and the United Kingdom.  The decision was made to join several other Latin American countries, including Argentina, to prevent Falkland-flagged ships from docking at their ports.  Although the ALBA CARICOM countries have not all come out and said whether their individual stance was in consonance with that of ALBA’s, one would not be unreasonable by taking their silence as agreement with the ALBA position. This position however is diametrically opposed to that taken by the non-ALBA members of CARICOM which have supported the Falkland Islands’ right to self-determination, that is, their right to remain British. Dr. Gonsalves’ stance on the issue caused some controversy in his country. However, on a larger scale, such divergence in policy position could be evidence of the potential threat of further fragmentation in the region’s foreign policy coherence.

    Politics aside, there is no doubt that the main attraction of ALBA to those CARICOM countries which have acceded so far  is the developmental support provided by its founding countries Venezuela and Cuba. Havana has long been a development partner of many countries in the region. Through bilateral cooperation agreements signed between the Cuban government and the governments of the region, the people of the wider Caribbean have benefited from free eye care in Cuban hospitals under Operation Miracle, scholarships to study medicine at Cuban universities and free health care by Cuban doctors.  Haiti has also benefited from food and literacy programmes.

    Under the Chavez administration, Venezuela has also taken a more active developmental role in the region. Since the establishment of the PetroCaribe Initiative in 2005, some 17 Caribbean countries, most of which are non-ALBA members, have benefitted from this arrangement which allows them to purchase oil on preferential terms of payment. Only part of the cost is paid up front and part can also be paid through the provision of agricultural goods. The remainder is repaid over a 25 year period at a 1% interest rate. The PetroCaribe deal has not been immune to criticism, and both Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago have not joined. Though such an arrangement helps in the short term to conserve much needed foreign exchange, it means that those countries which take oil on these terms are indebted to Venezuela in the longer term. Moreover, while PetroCaribe aims to promote energy security through the provision of “cheap” oil, Venezuelan fuel exports under the Agreement have decreased over time due to less available supply. Another criticism raised is that the ‘cheap oil’ provided under PetroCaribe increases the region’s dependence on the importation of fossil fuels. This latter argument is less persuasive given the increasing interest shown by CARICOM countries in renewable energy generation, through for instance geothermal, solar and wind energy.

    The financial support offered by ALBA is  highly attractive to debt-ridden CARICOM countries faced with an uncertain global economic and financial climate. Loans are given at favourable terms and without most of the usual conditionalities insisted on by traditional donors. Through its loan funds, ALBA has provided funding for projects, including infrastructure, housing and agriculture projects in Dominica for example. St Vincent and the Grenadines also received a loan from the ALBA Bank for the construction of a new international airport.

    The availability of credit under ALBA’s several funds can be contrasted with the limited capitalization of the CARICOM Development Fund. The CDF is provided for under Article 158 of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas as a fund to provide financial and technical assistance to disadvantaged countries, regions and sections within the grouping. The limited capitalization of the CDF, plus problems with the Petroleum Facility and the perceived lack of sensibility to the OECS countries’ unique vulnerabilities, were some of the many shortfalls of CARICOM about which Dr. Gonsalves complained in his previously mentioned letter. Frustrations like these over ill-functioning regional aid mechanisms plus the more readily available economic aid under ALBA, could lead to more CARICOM countries turning their attention to ALBA.

    One area in which CARICOM arguably maintains an upper-hand over ALBA is in trade. With a population of 70 million people, ALBA represents a larger market for regional goods than does CARICOM. That being said though, the export capabilities of the ALBA CARICOM remain too weak to effectively take advantage of this.  It is true that over the period 1999-2008, it is reported that average yearly trade between Venezuela and Antigua & Barbuda was USD 6.5 million, between Venezuela and Dominica, USD 179 million and between Venezuela and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 4.5 million dollars. However, given that petroleum trade accounts for most bilateral trade between Venezuela and ALBA CARICOM countries, the balance of trade is skewed in Venezuela’s favour.  While trade asymmetries do exist within CARICOM as well, the regime created by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas envisions the freedom of movement of goods, services, people (skilled) and capital within the Community, the right of Community nationals to establish businesses in other territories, as well as a competition commission which is charged with ensuring the rules of the market are respected.  ALBA has not as yet reached this level of integration. That being said, however, the large gulf between what the Revised Treaty provides for and what operates in practice in CARICOM has led to frustration that the expected benefits are not being seen.  Moreover, ALBA does intend to become an economic union, something which continues to elude CARICOM.

    Although there is an undisputed role for ALBA as a development aid and trade partner for our countries, their main integration focus should be on deepening CARICOM integration. CARICOM is more than a trade group. It was founded on the vision of our regional founding fathers who believed that strength comes not through parochialism but through the political, economic and social unification of a people already united through a common history and a shared culture and values. Regardless of its many shortcomings, CARICOM, its organs and associated bodies, have played a tremendous role in the region for the past nearly forty years and can play an even greater role once a serious attempt is made at reform by our Heads of Government.

    Moreover, although Venezuela is a useful ally for countries in the region by virtue of its stronger bargaining power in the international community, CARICOM’s interests as small states and those of Latin American countries, including Venezuela’s are not always complementary as seen in the Banana Wars in the WTO. It should also not be forgotten that Venezuela continues to have border disputes with two CARICOM States (Guyana and Dominica) which have still not been resolved and for which Venezuela has not changed its position.  A further caveat to bear in mind is that given the strong ideological divide in Venezuelan politics, there is no guarantee that whichever president eventually succeeds President Chavez would be leftist in political orientation or that he or she would be as sympathetic as his or her predecessor to the region’s concerns, or be committed to continuing ALBA and its component programs. Therefore, there is some concern about ALBA’s survivability in a post-Chavez era.

    The real threat to CARICOM is not ALBA though, but CARICOM itself.  Impatience with the slow process of integration and its associated benefits at the CARICOM level has had as its natural corollary a desire to explore more seemingly attractive alternatives. It is not surprising therefore that the poorer countries in the region, and some of the larger countries like Suriname as well, have set their compass to ALBA for the superior economic security it provides and its seemingly better alignment with their interests.  Unless our Heads of Government act seriously on their commitment made at the last inter-sessional meeting to formulate a plan of action designed to reform CARICOM to make it more effective, there could be a day when all of our countries eventually turn their backs completely on CARICOM in favour of other blocs which they believe have both the ability and will to better cater to their peoples’ interests and needs. That would be a sad day.

    Alicia Nicholls is a trade policy specialist and law student at the University of the West Indies – Cave Hill. You can contact her here or follow her on Twitter at @LicyLaw.